The course now has a video to show how to add new libraries on windows (the OpenImageDenoise one in this case) and add the new denoising node. You can get it until Monday at a reduced price. And it’s really made easy, even if you never wrote code before.
Eevee is fast you said? A 20sec render done with the upcoming E-Cycles, using the new Intel denoiser node, much faster preprocessing time and now about 3x faster render thanks to new optimizations 
You can now get E-Cycles as monthly membership or perpetual + 1 year of support, and get:
- cleaner renders at same spp,
- automatic tile size
- much faster rendering
- and the new Intel OpenImageDenoise node
10 Likes
Hi bliblubli,
is there any way to reach you via private message/email/discord? I couldn’t find an option on this site.
Have you no respect for people who just learned Eevee 
Impressive results.
1 Like
Great. Mac version please. Again.
1 Like
Impressive, what resolution is this output ?
It’s FullHD, such very fast render times are needed mostly for videos.
1 Like
I’m working on it.
To be fair, this one looks very fake. You can see constant size ambient occlusion shadow across the whole scene. Yes, sure it is fast, but it’s not a quality level you can be competitive at unless you want to earn like $5/hour, since everyone these days is capable of doing average level archviz 
I know it’s just some random Evermotion scene, but my point is it could be lit in a way which could turn $100 image into $1000 image. But that would probably not end up being just 2 minutes.
The general point I am making is that optimizations stop becoming relevant as soon as they start to introduce easily visible bias that is significantly detrimental to final quality and realism of lighting.
I suppose Evermotion guys use some fakes such as AO, or simplify bounces, and/or invisible fill lights. I’d first turn all the fakes off to truly see how your optimizations perform.
2 Likes
I didn’t notice anything. So I guess how fake it can look highly depends on the expectations of the client. For me and my work, there is no point in overdoing it to make it looks super realistic if it doesn’t have to - usually my own level of quality is set higher than what is expected of me - which leads to wasted time.
Sure, if you are not ambitious about what you do, that’s fine. But such people should not be a benchmark for creation of rendering technologies.
What does ambition have to do with the clients low budget?
What does that have to do with developing rendering technologies? If renderers were developed with the mentality of catering to low budget work, or in other words fastest performance regardless of quality, we all would still be using Blender Internal. Sure, it could not render photorealistic interior, heck, it did not even officially have GI, but boy could you render them fast on today’s hardware…
Here is the outline of the debate.
- I argued that if optimizations compromise quality too much, they are not much of use unless you do low quality work.
- Counterargument to that is that other people may not notice the quality is poor, and find it sufficient for low end jobs.
- My response to that is that’s fine, but it’s not a valid argument for developing a rendering technology. You can do both high end and low end work with renderer capable of producing high end results. But you can’t do high end work with renderer only capable of producing low end results. And of course, if you are willing to sacrifice that much quality for speed, then you are way better off using Eevee anyway.
bliblubli is showing Cycles renders with very impressive rendertimes, but it’s also worth noting that those Cycles renders are set up in a way that compromises quality to such a degree the resulting photorealism is comparable to Eevee. So yes, you get rendertimes close to Eevee, but you also get quality much closer to Eevee.
1 Like
this utility certainly seems to be personally offending people, for some reason.
given all your snarky/pompous comments, did it not occur to you that the render was simply an example to show the speed increase, and it’s not the fact that that’s the only way it works? it’s a render engine FFS, you set up the render however you want depending on your job/needs. it can be as simple or as complex as you (or your customer) want/need it to be. Render speeds will obviously reflect that, but the overriding fact of this build is that whatever your render set-up is, E-Cycles will probably do it a lot faster than that same set-up in stock. why not supply a file and show us your render times and someone can fire off a comparison for you to cast your haughty eye over?
2 Likes
So just to clarify things, E-Cycles indeed let the user decide. All tricks are optional, so that you can adapt to your client. So the image above is a testimonial of the engine flexibility and speed only. Quality level is up to the artist.
I find it actually a big plus, because you can render as fast as Eevee, just by using the improved AO simplify option, using a render engine you already know and which has a very good eco system of ready to use assets, materials, plug-ins (like Toonkit), etc. And if you notice your client wants more or less quality, in Eevee you must add manual volume probes, fake lights, etc. which requires much more work and has to be redone when the scene is changed by the architect or client. With Cycles, you can just change it with one or 2 sliders to switch from Eevee/UE style to Photorealistic and it adapts instantly when the project is modified.
So the example above was just to show their is no need to learn yet another render engine and that E-Cycles is very flexible and can indeed also be very fast.
4 Likes
Your post reads like selling low budget images is ambitionless. Perhaps a misunderstanding.
Anyway, I disagree that you can necessarily do both high and low end work with a high end renderer. Your last sentence disagrees with it as well.
Cycles the high end renderer is worse than EEVEE the low end renderer in certain aspects.
So why do you think that improving Cycles low end capabilites so far that it can compete with EEVEE is ambitionless?
1 Like
What is the status for rtx? Is there any e-cycles build already??
cheers, dave
1 Like
It’s on the radar, but I prioritize optimizations that work for all generations first.
Ok, thank you
You, like lukas stockner getting hung up on the trivialities of the scrambling distance patch represent a non-creative take on what is (often) a fundamentally creative technology. Its important but only so much. The ability to have fast and satisfying proxies/samples or even slightly (or very) stylized output frames is hugely significant. I think you know this but you are hung up on projecting ignorance onto others. Your points are well made but I have to ask - are you an artist? You sound like a pathologist talking about the clarity of your scans not an artist with vision for their own creative contributions. I can see you 150 years ago trying to tear down impressionism because its not realistic, lol.